- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:47:01 -0400
- To: "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Cc: "Eddie Robertsson" <erobertsson@allette.com.au>, "xmlschema-dev" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Just to give some perspective, among the reasons that the schema WG adopted a subset of XPath was that we (a) wanted to support streaming and (b) generally felt that having a small, predicatable set of capabilities for addressing keys would probably admit better optimizations and generally less implementation overhead in an already over-complex language. Also: I personally think that we probably made a mistake to do key/keyref at all in this round, or to do it in this way. Some members of the database community told us early in the process of development that they had a strong requirement for an analog of primary-key/foreign-key, and we provided this facility to meet that need. At the same time, we knew that there was a desire for more general co-occurrence constraints, but didn't find a way to express those constraints that generated concensus in the WG at the time. Accordingly, we did key/keyref in 1.0 with an intention to revisit co-occurrence in another release. I suspect we have the worst of both worlds: my impression (only my impression) is that most database experts actually feel that you need primary-key/foreign-key across documents, not within a document. At the same time we've intruduced a facility that feels temptingly close to giving you co-occurrence, but without meeting the general need, or (I think) being properly integrated into our type system. Of course, I'm just giving my impressions of how we got here, not speaking officially for the workgroup. Bottom line: there were reasons for what was done, it was understood from the start that more general co-occurrence constraints would be need, but I'm not at all sure in retrospect that we did the right thing to do key/keyref first. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Eric Jain" <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch> Sent by: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org 09/09/2002 07:59 AM To: "Eddie Robertsson" <erobertsson@allette.com.au> cc: "xmlschema-dev" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) Subject: Re: How to reference attributes from list items > Identity constraints and co-occurence constraints is on the > table for a rework in coming versions of the language. So it's only the path and nothing but the path you can use with keys... Anyways, it's good to hear that some work is being done here. While this isn't a critical feature and one can of course just include such a constraint in the documentation, human or machine readable, it feels a bit strange since the constraint is on a level you would naturally expect to have expressed directly at the schema level. -- Eric Jain
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 11:49:40 UTC